Maggot therapy for resistant infections: the disconnect between scientific evidence, clinical acceptance and practice.

Abstract

Practitioners and scientists are re-examining marginalised wound care therapies to find strategies that combat the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) without compromising patient outcomes. Maggot therapy (MT) makes up just an estimated 0.02% of UK's National Health Service spending on wound care. This study aims to uncover why MT is not used more often, despite its affordability and high level of efficacy for both debridement and disinfection, particularly in the context of AMR infections, and to determine what can be done to ensure MT is more effectively used in the future to improve patient outcomes and manage the growing problem of AMR. For this investigation, a qualitative review of case studies using MT against AMR infections and a quantitative analysis of randomised control trials (RCTs) were performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework. Analysis showed that MT is highly effective against a range of infections and wound types, and compares well against conventional therapies. The low use of MT may be due in part to the documented 'yuck factor', often associated with maggots as well as misconceptions around the cost, efficacy and accessibility of MT. To overcome these factors, more RCTs on the spectrum and efficacy of MT across various clinical manifestations are needed, as well as professional and public engagement campaigns. MT is an underused therapy, particularly regarding AMR infections, and expanding its use in these circumstances appears warranted. MT could play a vital role in conserving the efficacy of the existing pool of antimicrobials available and should be considered in the development of antimicrobial stewardship programmes. This work was supported by the Swansea Employability Academy, Swansea University (internal funding). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.